9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (6) TMI 1343X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r inputs received in the factory on or after 25th day of July, 1991 upon obtaining the dated acknowledgement of the declaration made under the said rule. In view of Section 142(6)(a) of Central Goods & Service Tax Act which provides for cash refund in every proceeding of appeal, review or reference relating to claim for Cenvat credit initiated whether before, on or after the appointed day under the existing law shall be disposed of, in accordance with the provisions of existing law, and any amount of credit found to be admissible to the claimant shall be refunded to him in cash. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - APPEAL No. E/2521/2012-EX[SM] - A/70912/2018-SM[BR] - Dated:- 19-4-2018 - Mr. Anil Choudhary, Member (Jud ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rescinded on 25/07/1991 vide Notification No.57/91 dated 25/07/1991. As on 25/07/1991, SPL had a balance of MEG 190.120 MT involving Excise duty of ₹ 12,63,909.31 in their set-off account. They sought permission vide letter dated 09/08/1991 under Rule, 57H(1) of CER, 1944 to transfer the balance from set-off register to the Modvat account-RG-23A Part-II. Under Memorandum dated 24/10/1996, the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise, Ghaziabad denied the permission for transfer of the credit balance from the set-off register to RG-23A Part-II. The Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Ghaziabad, had confirmed the view taken by the Assistant Commissioner and observed that set-off cannot be adjusted against Modvat credit simply by w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the set-off amount in their RG-23 account under Rule 57H(3) of erstwhile Central Excise Rules, 1944 is admissible or not. 5. Heard the parties. 6. I find that the learned Commissioner (appeals) have misdirected himself as he has not been able to appreciate that the issue of Cenvat credit of the stock of inputs lying in stock was under Rule 57H(1) as amended by Notification No.28/91-CE. Further on going through the amending Notification No.28/91-CE(N.T.) dated 25/07/1991, I find that amended Rule 57H(1) read as follows:- In the Central Excise Rules, 1944 (hereinafter referred to as the said rules), in Rule 57H- (a) for sub-rule (1), the following sub-rule shall be substituted, namely:- (1) Notwithstanding anyth ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er the said rule. 8. Admittedly the appellant had inputs MEG lying in stock as on 25/07/1991, admittedly they had filed the required declaration under Rule 57H(1) as amended. Admittedly the Central Excise duty input tax on 190.120MT of MEG was ₹ 12,63,909.31 as per records. Thus this quantity of MEG was available for use in the manufacture of PSF on 25th July, 1991. Use of MEG in the manufacture of PSF was covered within the Modvat credit scheme as is evident from Notification No.23/91-C.E.(N.T.) dated 25/07/1991 wherein the eligible input MEG qualifies under Chapter 29 as specified and the finished product/output qualifies under Chapter 54/55 of CETA, which is also specified in the said Notification. Accordingly, I hold that t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
